Is dying good or bad?

[LuQy]

Hi guys, I'm just wondering how many of you think that death (from a personal perspective) is a good thing or bad? From what I know and the people I know there is a 50/50 split, that's to say half of them think that it is better to be a good person do good deeds and die sooner so that you are more likely to enter heaven rather than run the risk of sinning in this morally declining world of ours. I think the influence of modernity is having major negative repercussions on society with the rise of crime/drug/terrorism-related deaths etc... and we are more likely to die as sinners than doers of good. I'm not too sure what the Athiest take on this would be, BUT i'm guessing they'd rather live on for as long as possible seeing as though they don't expect to be rejoining another kingdom after death.

[Hotoke]

live forever wich will soon be a possiblity but only if i am the way i am right now

Edited January 9, 2005 by Hotoke

[Kat_Kloud]

I would rather die than to live forever... At one time one will need a break... to rest... I can't imagine still being alive while watching all my loved ones die and fade away, leaving me alone. I'd be afraid to ever get closee to anyone again if I know I'll simply stay the same age rather than die with them.

Edited January 9, 2005 by Kat_Kloud

[Heavens Angel]

I think living forever would be cool at first but would get so lonely and boring after awhile.

[Hotoke]

it would be amazing. you get to see all the technological advancement and you could explore the galaxy. going to unkown planets. learning the way stuff happened

[whoa182]

live forever. the 21st century is probably the most Interesting century in the history of humanity.

We are right at a bigger industrial revoloution than any before it. I want to grow up with these new technologies. 80 year life span is NOT enough for me. a few hundred and id be happy

Im still confused why people say it will be boring! haha. Nothing will stay the same. you wont live how you live today. And you certainly will NOT be lonely.

Edited January 9, 2005 by whoa182

[Richdog]

Hmm would I like to live forever? maybe not forever, but certainly a good thousand years or so. I'd have to be stupidly-wealthy though to cope with it, lol, and give myself the funding to keep myself occupied.

As for extending humans lives through science...n ice in theory, bad in practise in my eyes. Humans weren't meant to live large amounts of time, and you could easily get situations where the wrong people had their lives massively extended. Untouchable uber crime-lords, or evil and very powerful people that would be able to exist indefinately. Obviously the flip side would be brilliant scientists that would be around for ages, or strong world-leaders that could achieve greatness.

To give people very long lives, you have to severely limit birth-control to compensate (probably a good thing). It could just so easily be abused...

I just personally don't think it's right though, humans are meant to have shorter live, it's what we are suited to as a species, and why we can achieve great amounts in such a relatively short amount of time... the desire to achieve in our brief lives is what drives us in my opinion.

[whoa182]

ive just gotten a quote from a BBC article, heres what he says

Should we cure ageing?

"Curing ageing will change society in innumerable ways. Some people are so scared of this that they think we should accept ageing as it is.

I think that is diabolical - it says we should deny people the right to life

The right to choose to live or to die is the most fundamental right there is; conversely, the duty to give others that opportunity to the best of our ability is the most fundamental duty there is.

There is no difference between saving lives and extending lives, because in both cases we are giving people the chance of more life. To say that we shouldn't cure ageing is ageism, saying that old people are unworthy of medical care."

Edited January 9, 2005 by whoa182

[Wings of Selkhet]

Meh - certainly not forever, but an extra few hundred years would be cool.

[whoa182]

Speaking of curing aging.

Ray Kurzweil will be interviewed live on CNN cable television on Sunday, January 9 sometime between 4 pm ET and 4:30 pm ET. The topic will be health and longevity.

EDIT: thats gone now aint it, in U.S time

Edited January 9, 2005 by whoa182

[Heavens Angel]

Your right humans are not suited to live forever but if you were able to live forever wouldnt you adjust/ I mean we adjust to so many things already, how hard could it really be?

[Kat_Kloud]

a few hundred and id be happy

That'd be nice. It'd be nice to at least live longer than we do now, but to live forever?

I think it really would be cool to see everything happening, but we'd have to have more homosexuals and a smaller chance of having children if we live that long, because soon enough we'd be overrunning the Earth. We'd have to start killing people just to have some space to walk down the street.

[whoa182]

Well I highly doubt that we are going to stay on earth through the next few hundred years.

We'll also be building Cities within cities. masssssivvvee BUILDINGS and VERY high.

Resources wont be a problem because with nanotechnology you can re-arrange atoms, Create any anything you wish by re-arranging atoms. " nano assembler "

If a Nano assembler is built, you could litrually crab carbon atoms and make diamonds out of thin air

you could see a house build its self. You could see a whole fleet of spaceships build themself.

Amazing hu?

pollution? nanotech will sort this out.

not enough water? yup... nanotech again is the soloution again.

nanotech

biotech

A.I computer, robotics

Space travel

THESE are what I want to live to see

Edited January 9, 2005 by whoa182

[Hotoke]

Well I highly doubt that we are going to stay on earth in the through the next few hundred years.

We'll also be builing  Cities within cities. masssssivvvee  BUILDINGS and VERY high.

Resources wont be a problem because with nanotechnology you can re-arrange atoms, Create any anything you wish by re-arranging atoms.  " nano assembler "

pollution?   nanotech will sort this out. 

not enough water?   yup...  nanotech again is the soloution again.

443561[/snapback]

i heard about that. how long till it is mainstream?

Edited January 9, 2005 by Hotoke

[whoa182]

only a few years away for simple stuff, we are already using the technology in some sports gear. more complicated stuff is around 5 years away. Nanotech is estimated to be worth 1 Trillion $ by 2010

Military will be getting a Lot of technologies made from nanotech.

1 example of the technology is making a bullet proof t-shirt.

Carbon-Nanotubes

They can create a bullet proof vest than is as thin as a piece of paper, 100x stronger than steel and only 1/6th the weight. It can stop a 45 cal bullet

nanotech is the next and BIGGEST industrial revoloution the world will have ever seen. nanotech is going to affect Every part of the economy, no matter what industry you are in

So im quite excited about the future tbh

Edited January 9, 2005 by whoa182

[LuQy]

Hmm very interesting views on this, I'm not too sure on the science of prolonging life?? is that cryogenics or looking for a master gene that prevents ageing? BUT even with the technological advancements do you not think it is degrading the society? I mean take the internet for example, the most commonly searched term on the net is SEX; pornography is one of the most viewed categories on the NET, what effects do you guys think this has on society? I personally think technological advancements bring more harm than good to society even though it has its advantages. I'm sure many of you are going to say its upto the individual etc.. BUT seriously with the easy access to porn/violence related stuff it seems to me the morality of society is declining faster than ever and I'd rather not live around such degradation........

[Rufio85]

As soon as they come out, I'm getting me one of those!!

[Hotoke]

watching porn on the net stops people from getting raped. they can blow steam on the net.

I personally think technological advancements bring more harm than good to society even though it has its advantages

no humans are the ones responnsible for that. religion killed more then technology.

technology is a tool. the main problem for a downgrading society is still humans

BUT seriously with the easy access to porn/violence related stuff it seems to me the morality of society is declining faster than ever and I'd rather not live around such degradation

where do you live? You have never seen a japanese cartoon before or have you ever been in japan? seriously there is more violence and sex on that tv then anywhere else. there are alot of adult themes on the anime's but still japan is the country with the highest morals and lowest crime ratings. this proves that violence/sex on tv has no or little impact on people. as a side note most people in japan do not believe in god. tehy just practise buddhism and shintoism as tradition

Edited January 9, 2005 by Hotoke

[whoa182]

You think nukes were bad?

Thats nothing to what we could face in the 21st century from Biotech and nanotech

[whoa182]

You guys will have the choice, Im confident that when the time comes, Most will go for the cure, even reversing damage to all their organs so you feel more youful again. This is going to be a serious issue over the next 10 years.

We know that extending life is possible, we have made mice live equiv to 500 human years. So its definitly not an impossible taks, but its certainly not easy either lol.

immortality has been promised for thousands of years, But only now are we Right on the verge of actually being able to achieve that goal.

We hve the information, its just putting it together.

Just stay off the McDonalds !!

[Deimos]

Is dying good or bad? hmm, depends on where you go

Edited January 9, 2005 by Monster Hunter X

[whoa182]

'We will be able to live to 1,000'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm

Life expectancy is increasing in the developed world. But Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey believes it will soon extend dramatically to 1,000. Here, he explains why.

Ageing is a physical phenomenon happening to our bodies, so at some point in the future, as medicine becomes more and more powerful, we will inevitably be able to address ageing just as effectively as we address many diseases today.

I claim that we are close to that point because of the SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence) project to prevent and cure ageing.

It is not just an idea: it's a very detailed plan to repair all the types of molecular and cellular damage that happen to us over time.

And each method to do this is either already working in a preliminary form (in clinical trials) or is based on technologies that already exist and just need to be combined

This means that all parts of the project should be fully working in mice within just 10 years and we might take only another 10 years to get them all working in humans.

When we get these therapies, we will no longer all get frail and decrepit and dependent as we get older, and eventually succumb to the innumerable ghastly progressive diseases of old age.

Playing God?

People also say we will get terribly bored but I say we will have the resources to improve everyone's ability to get the most out of life.

People with a good education and the time to use it never get bored today and can't imagine ever running out of new things they'd like to do.

And finally some people are worried that it would mean playing God and going against nature. But it's unnatural for us to accept the world as we find it.

Ever since we invented fire and the wheel, we've been demonstrating both our ability and our inherent desire to fix things that we don't like about ourselves and our environment.

We would be going against that most fundamental aspect of what it is to be human if we decided that something so horrible as everyone getting frail and decrepit and dependent was something we should live with forever.

If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which God made us in His image.

Edited January 9, 2005 by whoa182

[TooFarGone]

Not living = Bad

Sorry, put i wanna live.

[Hotoke]

If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which God made us in His image.

i like that that is a good quote

[LuQy]

no humans are the ones responnsible for that. religion killed more then technology.

technology is a tool. the main problem for a downgrading society is still humans

Hmmmm very interesting you should say that, if it wasn't for technology I doubt the war in Iraq would be happening, I doubt if Hiroshima would have been blown to shreds, I also doubt that many innocent civilians would have been killed around the world during the invasion of the British Empire (due to advanced weapons).. if it wasn't for technological advancements Hitler would never have had the chance to destroy so many lives... I guess there are many more pros and cons BUT for me the cons outweigh the pros